Now, you're talking...TheAussieReaper wrote:
If you shoot someone in the back, you just fire a 2nd shot into the air soon after. Witnesses will say they heard two shots fired. When you give your statement to authorities, you say you fired into the air as a warning shot. Told them not to move. And then they took off, resulting in your 2nd (lethal) shot.
Using arms for self-defense is an inherent part of the 2nd amendment ... vigilante justice is not.DrunkFace wrote:
Where in the second amendment does it say you are allowed to use 'arms' for self defence or more importantly vigilant missions?Moo? Si! wrote:
Let's go ahead and retract the 2nd amendment because one guy kills two more than likely low-lives. All of us gun owners are going to shoot criminals because the proof is right here. Case Closed!SharkyMcshark wrote:
The main argument against gun control* is that sane people with a registered gun do not snap and kill other people. Well this proves otherwise
True. Very true.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Two less douchebags to worry about.
But In a lot of situations the criminal has the gun.usmarine2005 wrote:
Explain non lethal defense to me?
I do not own a gun, but I have a pitching wedge and a big ass mag light at my disposal. I am fairly positive I can make those objects lethal.
Now, If I did own I gun, I cannot say how I would react in that situation. But in all honesty, they would have gotten a pitching wedge upside their heads.
Your mag light does nothing when he shoots you from across the room.
Fight fire with fire, and the truth is the criminals will always have guns. So your only weakening yourself
Last edited by Mitch (2008-01-01 09:12:49)
15 more years! 15 more years!
Golf club also. Most of these douche criminals can't use a gun anyway.Mitch wrote:
But In a lot of situations the criminal has the gun.usmarine2005 wrote:
Explain non lethal defense to me?
I do not own a gun, but I have a pitching wedge and a big ass mag light at my disposal. I am fairly positive I can make those objects lethal.
Now, If I did own I gun, I cannot say how I would react in that situation. But in all honesty, they would have gotten a pitching wedge upside their heads.
Your mag light does nothing when he shoots you from across the room.
Fight fire with fire, and the truth is the criminals will always have guns. So your only weakening yourself
Yeah, shooting somebody in the leg while running with a shotgun is really easy..SharkyMcshark wrote:
Shooting them in the legs. Not aiming for centre mass.usmarine2005 wrote:
Explain non lethal defense to me?
How about not shooting fleeing people to begin with?
And obviously not looking for a non lethal option at all was easier still.Sgt.Kyle wrote:
Yeah, shooting somebody in the leg while running with a shotgun is really easy..SharkyMcshark wrote:
Shooting them in the legs. Not aiming for centre mass.usmarine2005 wrote:
Explain non lethal defense to me?
How about not shooting fleeing people to begin with?
I love it!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 more felons thet will never harm another person again. Play dangerous games with an armed law abiding citizen and ya just might loose. And to think if that citizen hero did not have a gun, those two felons just mighta got away.SharkyMcshark wrote:
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2007/12/28/1198778703743.html
Let me start this by stating that I'm all for non lethal defence of your property, and your neighbour's property, killing someone if it's a case of self defence. But this is ridiculous. The main argument against gun control* is that sane people with a registered gun do not snap and kill other people. Well this proves otherwise
To quote the articleAnd, if you listen to the call the emergency services (link below, time 5.21), he states before the shooting that he's going to kill them. So he went outside to confront these people with the intention of killing them, and after they run away he shoots them.Horn's account is that after he ordered the men not to move, they took off in different directions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpO9Uv7uD1c
And again let me state that, while I'm personally for gun control, I can understand a person going to confront a robber with a loaded gun. I can understand a person shooting a robber if the robber intends to harm them, or wounding them non lethally to prevent them getting away. BUT, whether these men were on his property or not, and had stolen or not, if you shoot someone running from you that's not right.
If this was one of those lovely stories about how an armed intruder with a gun was confronted and taken down by a home owner I might have though "Aw well". But this is criminal. And no, I'm not saying you should go around robbing houses and expect to get off punishment free. I'm not trying to excuse the actions of the two deceased men. But Joe Horn essentially shot them in cold blood. I'm not condoning robbery, but I seem to remember the penalty for thus NOT being death. And again (just so every knows before flame) if they ran towards him or in some way threatened him, you could plausibly justify the shooting. But not when they were running away.
"Move and you're dead" (some have suggested that he said "Boom, you're dead" and to be honest it's hard to tell what he said to the robbers from the call)... I mean honestly, over what? A carry bag full of his neighbours possessions?
*For the mods: This isn't a thread about gun control per se`. If it was I'd have posted this in previous threads about gun control. This is a thread about what Mr Horn did. And yes I did search and am positive this hasn't been posted before.
You are not hallucinating... temp forum. http://bf2s.liquidat0r.com/viewtopic.php?id=3276Nappy wrote:
i heard that a few months ago?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doc … ons_of_use
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Props to that guy. I have no sympathy for those criminals.
It is pitiful that some can value human life so low. He should have let the cops arrest the two robbers. So much for Christian/Personal values.
A coward with a gun. Great job shooting people in the back while they're running away, against the better judgement of law enforcement officers. What a hero.
So I guess it is not the criminals fault at all then?mikkel wrote:
A coward with a gun. Great job shooting people in the back while they're running away, against the better judgement of law enforcement officers. What a hero.
The criminals had their hands on the stolen money, not the bloody trigger! They did not deserve to die.usmarine2005 wrote:
So I guess it is not the criminals fault at all then?mikkel wrote:
A coward with a gun. Great job shooting people in the back while they're running away, against the better judgement of law enforcement officers. What a hero.
Prison? Yes.
Deportation? Yes.
Shot in the back? No!
Ok...but they do share the blame plain and simple.mikeyb118 wrote:
The criminals had their hands on the stolen money, not the bloody trigger! They did not deserve to die.usmarine2005 wrote:
So I guess it is not the criminals fault at all then?mikkel wrote:
A coward with a gun. Great job shooting people in the back while they're running away, against the better judgement of law enforcement officers. What a hero.
Prison? Yes.
Deportation? Yes.
Shot in the back? No!
what if the money was meant for a life saving operation?mikeyb118 wrote:
The criminals had their hands on the stolen money, not the bloody trigger! They did not deserve to die.usmarine2005 wrote:
So I guess it is not the criminals fault at all then?mikkel wrote:
A coward with a gun. Great job shooting people in the back while they're running away, against the better judgement of law enforcement officers. What a hero.
Prison? Yes.
Deportation? Yes.
Shot in the back? No!
We have an equal force law here, I thought it sounded stupid but it's making more sense now.
You don't get to shoot a guy with a broom handle with a Shotgun.
You don't get to shoot a guy with a broom handle with a Shotgun.
Well there is a pretty easy and fail safe way to avoid situations like this. It has worked well for me all these years.
Why is it I hope everyone here who thinks they deserved to get shot in the back is on the receiving end of something similar? Oh yeah, because they are the real douches. The OP had a good point, yet so many here seem to think that death was appropriate. Maybe if you were the one dealing with an armed nut, your opinion would be different.
I never said he deserved it. I said they share the blame, which is what you seem to not want to admit.golgoj4 wrote:
Why is it I hope everyone here who thinks they deserved to get shot in the back is on the receiving end of something similar? Oh yeah, because they are the real douches. The OP had a good point, yet so many here seem to think that death was appropriate. Maybe if you were the one dealing with an armed nut, your opinion would be different.
They are to blame for stealing the goods, but that blame should delegated in a court of law. Not in the barrels of a shotgun. In this case inappropriate force has crossed the line into killing and murder. For the actions of Mr Horn were pre-meditated and entirely unnecessary.usmarine2005 wrote:
I never said he deserved it. I said they share the blame, which is what you seem to not want to admit.golgoj4 wrote:
Why is it I hope everyone here who thinks they deserved to get shot in the back is on the receiving end of something similar? Oh yeah, because they are the real douches. The OP had a good point, yet so many here seem to think that death was appropriate. Maybe if you were the one dealing with an armed nut, your opinion would be different.
No..you are getting into legal stuff and that is not what I am talking about.
I will put it this way then.
FACT : Don't try and steal and you will most likely not get shot in the back.
I will put it this way then.
FACT : Don't try and steal and you will most likely not get shot in the back.
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2008-01-01 11:42:53)
Pre-meditated murder.....no. Not really!Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
it was pre meditated. By those definitions it sounds like pre-meditated murder to me.
I agree with the rubber slugs for home defence - why would you need anything more?
The risks of stealing are irrelevant to the culpability of Mr Horn's actions.usmarine2005 wrote:
No..you are getting into legal stuff and that is not what I am talking about.
I will put it this way then.
FACT : Don't try and steal and you will most likely not get shot in the back.
Maybe if YOU were the one having your hard earned money stolen, money you use to support YOUR family then maybe YOUR opinion would be different. Maybe when you work for something you will not feel like just letting some felon take it from you without a fight. Maybegolgoj4 wrote:
Why is it I hope everyone here who thinks they deserved to get shot in the back is on the receiving end of something similar? Oh yeah, because they are the real douches. The OP had a good point, yet so many here seem to think that death was appropriate. Maybe if you were the one dealing with an armed nut, your opinion would be different.
This poor criminal shit never ceases to amaze me. You do realize it was the CRIMINALS that deserve to get hurt or killed during the commitment of a felony and NOT the victims RIGHT??